Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama appreciates your support.he'll probably cry himself to sleep knowing he's lost the angry retard vote.
No, I'll just work very hard to make sure he loses the General.
Romney will lose. Bank on it.
And I'll be laughing when he does.
Gingrich has been a nationally known figure for a long time: when the economy was booming and when it has been in a slump; when Republicans were on top and when the public disliked them; when the national mood was sunny and when it was sour. Amid all the tumult of the last 18 years there has been this constant: Gingrich has never been popular. Polls have never shown more than 43 percent of the public viewing him favorably at any point in his career. Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.
It should go without saying that Gingrich also offers more material than the other candidates for Democrats to drive his numbers in the wrong direction. Any Republican nominee will draw criticism for being too biased toward the rich. Not every Republican nominee will be attacked for cruelty in his personal life.
Obama appreciates your support.No, I'll just work very hard to make sure he loses the General.
Romney will lose. Bank on it.
And I'll be laughing when he does.
Who's fault is that. As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled four years ago when Romney came in third place behind McCain and Huckabee. Now he's losing to Santorum and Gingrich.
He was a sucky candidate four years ago, he's a sucky candidate now. So why are so many people willing to get on that horse again?
From The National Review, hardly a beacon of liberal journalism.
Gingrich has been a nationally known figure for a long time: when the economy was booming and when it has been in a slump; when Republicans were on top and when the public disliked them; when the national mood was sunny and when it was sour. Amid all the tumult of the last 18 years there has been this constant: Gingrich has never been popular. Polls have never shown more than 43 percent of the public viewing him favorably at any point in his career. Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.
It should go without saying that Gingrich also offers more material than the other candidates for Democrats to drive his numbers in the wrong direction. Any Republican nominee will draw criticism for being too biased toward the rich. Not every Republican nominee will be attacked for cruelty in his personal life.
Hour of Newt - The Editors - National Review Online
It's a good article throughout.
In a survey conducted January 18-22, the Washington Post found that Gingrich's favorable-to-unfavorable rating among all voters is 29-to-51 percent. Romney's is 31-to-49 percent.
Among independents, Romney has a 23-to-51 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich's is 23-to-53.
Among Republicans, Romney has a 58-to-32 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich's is 55-to-34 percent.
Among Democrats, Romney has a 21-to-62 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich's is 16-to-66.
How did this happen? Apparently, Romney's negative rating among blue collar whites has jumped 20 points in two weeks
better for Obama, if Newt wins....! There is no other way to view it.....imo!
Obama appreciates your support.
Who's fault is that. As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled four years ago when Romney came in third place behind McCain and Huckabee. Now he's losing to Santorum and Gingrich.
He was a sucky candidate four years ago, he's a sucky candidate now. So why are so many people willing to get on that horse again?
Bigoted extremist fucks like you are making sure Obama gets reelected. David Axelrod has a hard on for people like you.
I think the right are having a mass delusion. Don't wake them.
Jokey, you're a Republican right? Can you explain to me why the party of 'family values' would prefer a candidate who doesn't know what 'family values' means over one who actually is an example of 'family values'?
Are Republicans stupid? Or just hypocrites?
Republicans, like Dems or Libertarians or Conservatives or Moon Worshippers or Whatever, are susceptible to substituting personal belief for responsibility to critically think.
In the case of the far right Christian evangelicals (or some Opus Dei type of Catholics, for that matter, whom I have know) are hypocritical in choosing a verbally abusive (check out his speech) candidate and significantly flawed individual as their candidate. If Judas came back and said "I am sorry and repent", and they thought he could win, many of them would line up for him.
The issue is that this group wants to win so badly that they have checked their wits and their morality at the cloakroom. They are the political equivalent of the Westboro Baptists.
The thing with this whole 'sorry' business is that one is expected to actually mean it and to do better. That's Gingrich's issue - he says 'sorry' like kids do.... to mean 'I'm sorry I got caught' and continue the same bad behavior. I fail to see why the hordes on the right are falling for this bullshit. Really, I just don't get it. Stupidity seems to be contagious in your party.
This is what happened in 1932 and 1964: mass far right delusion.
Obama appreciates your support.
Who's fault is that. As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled four years ago when Romney came in third place behind McCain and Huckabee. Now he's losing to Santorum and Gingrich.
He was a sucky candidate four years ago, he's a sucky candidate now. So why are so many people willing to get on that horse again?
Bigoted extremist fucks like you are making sure Obama gets reelected. David Axelrod has a hard on for people like you.
This is what happened in 1932 and 1964: mass far right delusion.
Wow, ignorant of history, too? 1932 they had what they had, an incumbant president who just had the economy shot out from underneath him. I don't think anyone on the GOP side was thrilled with Hoover for a second term, just no one wanted to be the guy FDR trashed.
1964 was a different animal, because you work on the assumption that Nelson Rockefeller could have done any better.
In 1964, you had an excellent economy, we were at peace, we were at the height of our economic and political power, we were finally tackling civil rights issues. Unemployment was under 5%. We were on our way to the freakin' Moon, baby! And LBJ was running on the mantle of a Martyred President. Key point. When a President dies, his party almost NEVER loses the subsequent election. (The exception was 1844, when the Whigs were self-destructing in general.)
So essentially, nominating Rockerfeller would have had the same effect as nominating Goldwater.
Republicans, like Dems or Libertarians or Conservatives or Moon Worshippers or Whatever, are susceptible to substituting personal belief for responsibility to critically think.
In the case of the far right Christian evangelicals (or some Opus Dei type of Catholics, for that matter, whom I have know) are hypocritical in choosing a verbally abusive (check out his speech) candidate and significantly flawed individual as their candidate. If Judas came back and said "I am sorry and repent", and they thought he could win, many of them would line up for him.
The issue is that this group wants to win so badly that they have checked their wits and their morality at the cloakroom. They are the political equivalent of the Westboro Baptists.
The thing with this whole 'sorry' business is that one is expected to actually mean it and to do better. That's Gingrich's issue - he says 'sorry' like kids do.... to mean 'I'm sorry I got caught' and continue the same bad behavior. I fail to see why the hordes on the right are falling for this bullshit. Really, I just don't get it. Stupidity seems to be contagious in your party.
He admitted to his affairs, and the last known was what? 13 yrs ago? Since then he says he has turned to God, asked for forgiveness, and has changed. Who's to say he hasn't? Has there been any other accusations of him since then? I admit it's only his word that he has changed...but if God can forgive him, so can i. If you're a Christian, this is what God would expect of you.
Republicans, like Dems or Libertarians or Conservatives or Moon Worshippers or Whatever, are susceptible to substituting personal belief for responsibility to critically think.
In the case of the far right Christian evangelicals (or some Opus Dei type of Catholics, for that matter, whom I have know) are hypocritical in choosing a verbally abusive (check out his speech) candidate and significantly flawed individual as their candidate. If Judas came back and said "I am sorry and repent", and they thought he could win, many of them would line up for him.
The issue is that this group wants to win so badly that they have checked their wits and their morality at the cloakroom. They are the political equivalent of the Westboro Baptists.
The thing with this whole 'sorry' business is that one is expected to actually mean it and to do better. That's Gingrich's issue - he says 'sorry' like kids do.... to mean 'I'm sorry I got caught' and continue the same bad behavior. I fail to see why the hordes on the right are falling for this bullshit. Really, I just don't get it. Stupidity seems to be contagious in your party.
He admitted to his affairs, and the last known was what? 13 yrs ago? Since then he says he has turned to God, asked for forgiveness, and has changed. Who's to say he hasn't? Has there been any other accusations of him since then? I admit it's only his word that he has changed...but if God can forgive him, so can i. If you're a Christian, this is what God would expect of you.
The thing about Newt Gingrich is he happens to be a great speaker and a very good debater, unfortunately we have already seen how well that worked for "President" in handling this economy.
This is what happened in 1932 and 1964: mass far right delusion.
Wow, ignorant of history, too? 1932 they had what they had, an incumbant president who just had the economy shot out from underneath him. I don't think anyone on the GOP side was thrilled with Hoover for a second term, just no one wanted to be the guy FDR trashed.
1964 was a different animal, because you work on the assumption that Nelson Rockefeller could have done any better.
In 1964, you had an excellent economy, we were at peace, we were at the height of our economic and political power, we were finally tackling civil rights issues. Unemployment was under 5%. We were on our way to the freakin' Moon, baby! And LBJ was running on the mantle of a Martyred President. Key point. When a President dies, his party almost NEVER loses the subsequent election. (The exception was 1844, when the Whigs were self-destructing in general.)
So essentially, nominating Rockerfeller would have had the same effect as nominating Goldwater.
You have no idea what you are talking about or you are deflecting, which is the case.
The far right thought Hoover and Goldwater would win big, despite all the signs.
So do you and the newtings.
You will give the election to Obama by 10% or more.
The thing about Newt Gingrich is he happens to be a great speaker and a very good debater, unfortunately we have already seen how well that worked for "President" in handling this economy.
